Ex-Mormons Shut up and Sing

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

Wade,

Once again you betray that you have never understood the basic point of either Juliann's theory OR the criticism launched against it. As runtu already tried to explain, no one is criticizing Juliann for her feelings or experiences. She is being criticized for misusing sources.

Aside from that, your argument is just a variation of "you can't criticize a bigot without being bigot yourself because you attack the bigot" nonsense.

Vulture,

I don't know the answer to your question, other than anecdotal evidence. My boyfriend has been inactive in the church for decades. Years after he fell into inactivity for personal reasons (while remaining a believer - he had been through a horrific divorce, and the culture of the LDS church was too emotionally painful for him to endure, but he still believed the church was true) he lost his faith altogether. In the meantime, he had moved from Utah to the state of Washington. He had never been active in Washington. Every now and then a hometeacher would wander by, but nothing consistent or targeted. He was just one of the mass inactives. About a year after losing faith, however, he created a personal website about his loss of faith (called, for real old timers, "And Then I Cried"). Someone (can't quite remember who at this point, it was no one he knew, but I can't remember where this person was on the church hierarchy, I'll try to remember to ask him to refresh my memory) reported him to his stake president. His stake president told him to take down the website or he would be excommunicated. My boyfriend didn't care about being ex'd, but his family was in a great deal of emotional pain over his loss of faith, so he took it down to spare their feelings.

Other people on internet boards have claimed that their real life identities were somehow tracked down and reported to the local authorities. I can't recall what the result of that reporting was.

I really don't know if the church has an official policy on this, or like in many other matters, it largely depends on who your bishop happens to be.

Beastie

I understand boy do I understand!!!!!

I have wanted for years to have my named removed from the lists but my hubby said wait until your parents are dead because they will never speak to us again......well my parents are dead now so I will be having my name removed

[_beastie]

Well, I'll let Juliann offer her own evidence.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=19588


Quote:
juliann Nov 10 2006, 01:09 PM

Deconversion stories are carefully crafted by those who need admittance into another group (whether it be a religion or the internet). An exie that is aligning with anti-Mormons can't stay with a message of peace and love toward all. So the exit story has to morph into what the group demands. That is why they are so formulaic. They have to take care of several issues...the story has to explain why they stayed as long as they did and participated in the horrors, and turned on their family/friends, thus they must be helpless dupes. The story must always keep the former group in a bad light (remember...they have turned on friends, need to keep up a good reason to justify that).

The story typically involves a growing body of doubts, a dawning realization that they have been tricked that culminates in a moment of enlightenment. Exit stories are usually big on the Pauline model of conversion...the flash of light thing. At that point, it becomes a matter of conscience. Conscience always Trump's loyalty to family/friends. Then the stories must be elaborated. There is a stock fill-in-the-blank "atrocity tale" (I was lied to, made to give money, spiritually abused, etc) and a "captivity tale", (I was brainwashed, deceived, manipulated). As the person seeks acceptance with a new group, they will have to tailor their exit tale to be acceptable to that group.


DISCLAIMER: The vast majority of people who leave the church are never heard from again...it would just be a vague story of disenchantment, non-acceptance or whatever. They don't publish inflammatory sagas and they don't harrass members of the group they left. They do not turn on family/friends and have no need to seek out another group (an interesting phenomena in and of itself when they claim to be escaping a controlling group only to sign up with another). So, angy exmos, please don't try to hide behind this group of people.

(edited to add missing negative)



So, the words "carefully crafted", "story has to morph", "justify turning on friends", "tailor their exit" story should be plain enough even for you, Wade.

This is the whole point of Juliann's theory. It is not simply to provide a sociological definition of "apostate". It is to provide a justification for still believing members to disbelieve and disregard what apostates SAY about Mormonism, and their experience therein.

In other words, apostates are not the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY in what they think or believe.

I posted this on page one. Did you even read it?

Someone who says that an individual's "exit narrative" has been "carefully crafted", "morphed", "tailored", etc - is saying that you can't trust their story to relate the past in a reliable manner. Surely, surely, even you can understand that.

[_wenglund]

Well, I'll let Juliann offer her own evidence.

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=19588


Quote:
juliann Nov 10 2006, 01:09 PM

Deconversion stories are carefully crafted by those who need admittance into another group (whether it be a religion or the internet). An exie that is aligning with anti-Mormons can't stay with a message of peace and love toward all. So the exit story has to morph into what the group demands. That is why they are so formulaic. They have to take care of several issues...the story has to explain why they stayed as long as they did and participated in the horrors, and turned on their family/friends, thus they must be helpless dupes. The story must always keep the former group in a bad light (remember...they have turned on friends, need to keep up a good reason to justify that).

The story typically involves a growing body of doubts, a dawning realization that they have been tricked that culminates in a moment of enlightenment. Exit stories are usually big on the Pauline model of conversion...the flash of light thing. At that point, it becomes a matter of conscience. Conscience always Trump's loyalty to family/friends. Then the stories must be elaborated. There is a stock fill-in-the-blank "atrocity tale" (I was lied to, made to give money, spiritually abused, etc) and a "captivity tale", (I was brainwashed, deceived, manipulated). As the person seeks acceptance with a new group, they will have to tailor their exit tale to be acceptable to that group.


DISCLAIMER: The vast majority of people who leave the church are never heard from again...it would just be a vague story of disenchantment, non-acceptance or whatever. They don't publish inflammatory sagas and they don't harrass members of the group they left. They do not turn on family/friends and have no need to seek out another group (an interesting phenomena in and of itself when they claim to be escaping a controlling group only to sign up with another). So, angy exmos, please don't try to hide behind this group of people.

(edited to add missing negative)



So, the words "carefully crafted", "story has to morph", "justify turning on friends", "tailor their exit" story should be plain enough even for you, Wade.

This is the whole point of Juliann's theory. It is not simply to provide a sociological definition of "apostate". It is to provide a justification for still believing members to disbelieve and disregard what apostates SAY about Mormonism, and their experience therein.

In other words, apostates are not the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY in what they think or believe.

I posted this on page one. Did you even read it?

Someone who says that an individual's "exit narrative" has been "carefully crafted", "morphed", "tailored", etc - is saying that you can't trust their story to relate the past in a reliable manner. Surely, surely, even you can understand that.

Whether it suggest that their story can't be trusted or not (no reasonable person would believe that it does), this does not invalidated the "experiences and feelings of lots of exMormons because they won't shut up" any more or less than you have invalidated Juliann's experiences and feelings about those ex-Mormons by falsely asserting she "misuses sources" and thus can't be trusted. You want her to shut up about "apostates". To you, the only good apologist is a silent apologist. According to your way of thinking, there is never an appropriate time for apologists to express their criticism of critics of the Church. You indicated that you don't really care what Julian thinks about you, as long as she shuts up about that subject. This is one of the basic points in your "criticism" of Juliann. I offer this thread and the "Juliann Distorts..." thread as evidence. This is the whole point of your criticism of her. It is not just a criticsm on sociological grounds. It is to justify non-believers disbelieving or disregarding what Juliann SAYS about apostates. In other words, Juliann is not the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY in what she thinks and believes. As per your model, Juliann should always SHUT UP, and the only bad apologists are those who speak up. Again, "shut up and sing".

Please tell me that you actually get this simple and obvious fact (after all, I intentionally used some of your own words from this thread).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

To you, the only good apologist is a silent apologist. According to your way of thinking, there is never an appropriate time for apologists to express their criticism of critics of the Church.

Indeed, there is never an appropriate time for apologists to express their criticism of critics. What a good apologist does is criticize the critic's argument, not the critic. This is not a difficult subject to grasp, but there is no end of apologists who much prefer to criticize the critic, instead of the critic's argument, and that includes Juliann, DCP, Hamblin, et al. Ben McGuire, Gazelem, and Kevin Graham take on the argument, not the critic. That's why they're so respected, while the likes of Juliann and Pahoran are not.

[_Pahoran]

To you, the only good apologist is a silent apologist. According to your way of thinking, there is never an appropriate time for apologists to express their criticism of critics of the Church.

Indeed, there is never an appropriate time for apologists to express their criticism of critics. What a good apologist does is criticize the critic's argument, not the critic. This is not a difficult subject to grasp, but there is no end of apologists who much prefer to criticize the critic, instead of the critic's argument, and that includes Juliann, DCP, Hamblin, et al. Ben McGuire, Gazelem, and Kevin Graham take on the argument, not the critic. That's why they're so respected, while the likes of Juliann and Pahoran are not.

I guess then, by the same logic, there is never an appropriate time for anti-Mormons to express their criticism of Mormons. Like, say, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. What a good anti-Mormon, if such there should ever be, does is criticize the Mormon's argument, not the Mormon. This is not a difficult subject to grasp, but there is no end of anti-Mormons who much prefer to criticize the Mormon, instead of the Mormon's argument, and that includes you, Beastie, Scratch, Rollo, Vegas and just about everyone else here.

And that's where my textual mirror breaks down.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_OUT OF MY MISERY]

To you, the only good apologist is a silent apologist. According to your way of thinking, there is never an appropriate time for apologists to express their criticism of critics of the Church.

Indeed, there is never an appropriate time for apologists to express their criticism of critics. What a good apologist does is criticize the critic's argument, not the critic. This is not a difficult subject to grasp, but there is no end of apologists who much prefer to criticize the critic, instead of the critic's argument, and that includes Juliann, DCP, Hamblin, et al. Ben McGuire, Gazelem, and Kevin Graham take on the argument, not the critic. That's why they're so respected, while the likes of Juliann and Pahoran are not.

I guess then, by the same logic, there is never an appropriate time for anti-Mormons to express their criticism of Mormons. Like, say, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. What a good anti-Mormon, if such there should ever be, does is criticize the Mormon's argument, not the Mormon. This is not a difficult subject to grasp, but there is no end of anti-Mormons who much prefer to criticize the Mormon, instead of the Mormon's argument, and that includes you, Beastie, Scratch, Rollo, Vegas and just about everyone else here.

And that's where my textual mirror breaks down.



We are not ANTI-MORMONS are we?????


I am so so confused

I am an ex-mormon right?????


WOW this smart bitch is so confused

[_wenglund]

To you, the only good apologist is a silent apologist. According to your way of thinking, there is never an appropriate time for apologists to express their criticism of critics of the Church.

Indeed, there is never an appropriate time for apologists to express their criticism of critics. What a good apologist does is criticize the critic's argument, not the critic. This is not a difficult subject to grasp, but there is no end of apologists who much prefer to criticize the critic, instead of the critic's argument, and that includes Juliann, DCP, Hamblin, et al. Ben McGuire, Gazelem, and Kevin Graham take on the argument, not the critic. That's why they're so respected, while the likes of Juliann and Pahoran are not.

Even though I don't agree with your characterization and ironic (hypocritically personalized) criticism of Juliann and Pahoran, I do appreciate you underscoring my point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

To you, the only good apologist is a silent apologist. According to your way of thinking, there is never an appropriate time for apologists to express their criticism of critics of the Church.

Indeed, there is never an appropriate time for apologists to express their criticism of critics. What a good apologist does is criticize the critic's argument, not the critic. This is not a difficult subject to grasp, but there is no end of apologists who much prefer to criticize the critic, instead of the critic's argument, and that includes Juliann, DCP, Hamblin, et al. Ben McGuire, Gazelem, and Kevin Graham take on the argument, not the critic. That's why they're so respected, while the likes of Juliann and Pahoran are not.

I guess then, by the same logic, there is never an appropriate time for anti-Mormons to express their criticism of Mormons. Like, say, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. What a good anti-Mormon, if such there should ever be, does is criticize the Mormon's argument, not the Mormon. This is not a difficult subject to grasp, but there is no end of anti-Mormons who much prefer to criticize the Mormon, instead of the Mormon's argument, and that includes you, Beastie, Scratch, Rollo, Vegas and just about everyone else here.

And that's where my textual mirror breaks down.

Regards,
Pahoran

Joseph and Brigham are the church, Pahoran. Without them, there is no LDS church. So your textual mirror breaks down long before it ever gets to me.

[_Mrs Robbins]

I think the most compassionate thing to do on this board is to politely ignore or engage Smart Bitch in dialogue.

[_rcrocket]

I think the most compassionate thing to do on this board is to politely ignore or engage Smart Bitch in dialogue.

Why? I think she is quite representative of the level of education, study, intellect, morals and ethics of most of the posters on this Board. I admire her continued participation.